Commonwealth v. DiStefano

265 A.3d 290

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Brady Collin DISTEFANO, Appellant

No. 7 WAP 2021

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: October 25, 2021

Decided: December 22, 2021

Thomas M. Dickey, Esq., Tom Dickey Law Offices, P.C., for Appellant.

Gina Ryen Force, Esq., Ryen-Force Law PC, Robert Francis Manzi, Esq., Indiana County District Attorney's Office, for Appellee.

BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE BAER

In February of 2017, Caleb Zweig ("Zweig") died after a brief but tragic interaction with his college fraternity brother, Brady DiStefano ("Appellant"). Appellant initially was charged with aggravated assault and criminal homicide due to this encounter; however, the criminal homicide charge later was dismissed as the Commonwealth failed to produce prima facie evidence to support it. In response to Appellant's subsequent pretrial motion, the trial court entered an order precluding the Commonwealth from presenting at Appellant's trial any evidence suggesting that Appellant caused Zweig's death. The Commonwealth appealed that order to the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court's order.

This Court granted allowance of appeal to determine whether the Superior Court misapplied the appellate court standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary rulings. After careful consideration, we respectfully conclude that the Superior Court misapplied the relevant standard of review in reversing the trial court's order. Thus, for the reasons that follow, we vacate the Superior Court's judgment, reinstate the trial court's order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

I. Background

In February of 2017, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with criminal homicide and aggravated assault in connection with the death of Zweig. On April 26, 2017, a magisterial district judge ("MDJ") presided over Appellant's preliminary hearing. The first witness to testify at that hearing was Trevor King ("King"). King testified, in relevant part, as follows.

King, Zweig, and Appellant were students at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and fraternity brothers. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 3, 2017, King arrived at an off-campus party. About 45 minutes later, Zweig informed King that Appellant was intoxicated and needed to be taken home. Shortly thereafter, the three fraternity brothers left the party and headed toward the residences of Zweig and Appellant. According to King, both Zweig and Appellant were intoxicated; however, Zweig "was not nearly as bad" as Appellant. N.T., 4/26/2017, at 7.

King stated that he walked slightly in front of Zweig and Appellant, when he heard the two "bickering a little bit but nothing out of the ordinary." Id. at 6. At that point, King turned around and observed Zweig and Appellant facing each other with their chests puffed out as they began "poking each other." Id. at 7-8. King told the two men to stop, turned around, and began to walk again. A few seconds later, King heard what he described as a "scuffle," which caused him to turn around again. Id . at 8.

King testified that, when he turned around, he saw Zweig on his back on the pavement. Appellant was on his knees with his back toward King, while kneeling over Zweig. King stated that Appellant's hands were on Zweig's "chest area," though King was not entirely sure where Appellant placed his hands because he "didn't really see." Id. King noted that Appellant could not have had his hands on Zweig for more than 5 or 6 seconds. Id. at 31. King then pulled Appellant off Zweig, separating the two.

According to King, several persons assisted him with moving Zweig to a nearby grass area. Zweig was unconscious and breathing with "weird noises coming from his throat." Id. at 9. Shortly after they moved Zweig, someone called 911, and an ambulance arrived a few minutes later. At some point, Appellant left the scene, and after the ambulance arrived, King went back to the house from which the three had left earlier, where he found Appellant. King noticed that Appellant had a scratch on his face and then escorted Appellant to his residence. The next morning, King was informed by a friend that Zweig had died over night.

The next witness to testify at the preliminary hearing was Ashley Zezulak, M.D. ("Dr. Zezulak"), the forensic pathologist who performed Zweig's autopsy. Dr. Zezulak testified that she discovered a "scalp hemorrhage" on Zweig's head that was not large enough to have been the cause of his death. Id. at 52. Indeed, the doctor stated that her examination of Zweig uncovered nothing remarkable. Id. at 50. Dr. Zezulak explained that she found no physical signs that Zweig had been choked or suffered chest compression. Id. at 52. Notwithstanding this lack of physical evidence, the doctor expressed an uncertain opinion that Zweig died of "[a]sphyxiation, secondary to presumed chokehold and chest compression." Id. Dr. Zezulak stated that her opinion was uncertain because it arose from the investigation into Zweig's death, not from anything that she discovered during the autopsy. In fact, the doctor remarked that she "didn't find any significant anatomical findings during the autopsy." Id. at 51. Thus, the doctor conceded that her cause-of-death determination was not based upon the autopsy but, rather, "solely on what investigators told [her.]"¹ Id. at 57.

The MDJ concluded that the Commonwealth presented a prima facie case for both aggravated assault and criminal homicide. Appellant subsequently filed an omnibus pretrial motion, which included a petition for a writ of habeas corpus . As to that petition, Appellant asserted that the "evidence at the preliminary hearing did not suffice to state a prima facie case against [Appellant.]" Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 9/1/2017, at ¶5. The trial court agreed with Appellant, and on November 13, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing both of Appellant's charges. The Commonwealth appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Commonwealth v. DiStefano , 2018 WL 5076959 (Pa. Super. filed 10/18/2018) (unpublished memorandum) (" DiStefano I "). Specifically, the Superior Court held that the trial court correctly concluded that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of criminal homicide against Appellant but that the court erred in finding that the Commonwealth failed to present a prima facie case of aggravated assault against Appellant.

On remand, Appellant filed a motion in limine . In pertinent part, Appellant asked the trial court to preclude the Commonwealth from presenting at his trial any evidence regarding Zweig's death. In making this request, Appellant highlighted that the homicide charge had been dismissed, rendering Zweig's death irrelevant to the prosecution of the aggravated assault charge. Appellant further submitted that, to the extent that evidence of Zweig's death is somehow relevant to the aggravated assault charge, "its probative value is outweighed by the danger of one or more of [the following:] unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Motion In Limine , 8/22/2019, at ¶8.

The trial court reserved ruling on this issue, causing Appellant to renew his motion in limine on November 8, 2019. On November 14, 2019, the trial court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Appellant's motion. The court stated that it would permit the Commonwealth to present evidence that Zweig is deceased "to explain to the jury his absence at trial and why the expert testimony from a forensic pathologist is being presented." Trial Court Order, 11/14/2019, at ¶3. However, the court ruled that, because it dismissed the criminal homicide charge, "no evidence shall be permitted to prove that [Appellant] caused [Zweig's] death." Id.

Later, the trial court authored an opinion elaborating on the rationale underlying its November 14th order. Trial Court Opinion, 2/4/2020. In so doing, the court observed that, after the criminal homicide charge was dismissed, the prosecution did not present any additional evidence supporting a causal connection between Appellant's actions and Zweig's death. Id. at 4. Concerning the relevance of evidence relating to Zweig's death, the court reiterated that it is probative insomuch as the evidence explains why Zweig will not be present at trial and why the expert testimony is from a forensic pathologist. In the court's view, the probative value of this narrow type of evidence outweighed prejudice to Appellant, and therefore, the evidence is admissible for this purpose. Id. at 4-5.

Regarding the admissibility of evidence as to the cause of Zweig's death, the court submitted that any probative value of this evidence was outweighed by unfair prejudice to Appellant. Id. at 5. The court highlighted that, in her preliminary hearing testimony, Dr. Zezulak was unable to state definitively how Zweig died, and she specifically testified that she found no physical evidence of trauma that would have been fatal to Zweig. The court opined that this reality, "along with other testimony, failed to establish that [Appellant] caused Zweig's death, and led to the dismissal of the criminal homicide charges." Id. Thus, in the court's view, "it would be highly prejudicial to [Appellant] to allow the Commonwealth to suggest that his actions in any way caused Zweig's death[.]" Id.

II. Superior Court Opinion

The Commonwealth yet again appealed to the Superior Court, this time arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in finding any evidence concerning the causation of the Zweig's death to be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Superior Court agreed with the Commonwealth, reversed the trial court's order, and remanded for further proceedings. Commonwealth v. DiStefano , 236 A.3d 93 (Pa. Super. 2020) (" ...